Sorry to everyone if this topic comes up again but we have had several people recently claiming ID and not Evolution is the correct idea and this is usually based on the bible. Biblestudent, for example, uses the bible to show us how things ought to be.

So, to the theists who hold to ID, how do you know the bible is factually accurate? Now, I don't mean we can say it is if there is a Jerusalem and Bethlehem in the real world. No, I mean, when it comes to say creation, how do you know the account there is actually true and not a modified Babylonian narrative and using Babylonian gods?

I appreciate the fact that the bible is thought of as at least spiritually true and to contain all that is needed for salvation but it doesn't need to be factually accurate in, say, the creation narrative in order to to help one achieve salvation. The creation story could be a myth there to show the belief that there is a god who takes an interest in people without it having to be factually true.

Well, there you go, any answer, please?

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

It's mainly just protestant religions who do believe in ID though the opposition against Catholicism in some sects is so strong that I wonder if it's more of just that, than anything. else. Catholics believe in Evolution (but that Biblegod did it) so they don't.

Kind of like with the Republicans vs Democrats. If Republicans were initially for it and then the Democrats decide they are for it the Republicans are no longer for it because they hate the Democrats that much.

Just an idea.

Because in public I know protestants who say they are Creationists but in private lean more toward Evolution but their hatred of certain religions and/or people prevents them from admitting it so they promote what they may not place too much stock in. How that makes them look better, I don't know.

-Nam

Logged

Things I've said here:

Quote

I only have a filter for people who do not consistently beg to be belittled, ridiculed, insulted, and demeaned.

Quote

I may believe people, as a whole, should be treated fairly but I also believe those same people are idiots.

Note the "wrongly" I put between parentheses. ID is as much a theory as Russel's Teapot.

Actually, Russel's Teapot is simple to refute. A teapot by definition is a material observable object. It is not immaterial. So there can be no such logical thing as an immaterial teapot. It's nonsensical, ridiculous, preposterous, and outrageous.

I.D. is simply much more logical than blind evolution. Things in nature are so meticulous that they simply could not evolved on their own: Childbirth, immune system, circulatory system, bones, organs, etc etc etc.

Not to mention the fact that we can jump into the air and technically be off the Earth for a few seconds while we are in the air. How can we evolve from materials from the Earth when we aren't even connected to the Earth? We are separate from the Earth, we are not glued down to it.

Actually, Russel's Teapot is simple to refute. A teapot by definition is a material observable object. It is not immaterial. So there can be no such logical thing as an immaterial teapot. It's nonsensical, ridiculous, preposterous, and outrageous.

I noticed that you went for the "low-hanging fruit" of Russell's Teapot. Which, I assume, was the point of OAA mentioning it in the first place. By the way, I agree with your use of adjectives and the fact that by extension, they apply to ID "theory". It is indeed "nonsensical, ridiculous, preposterous, and outrageous", especially since creationists have never once shown any real evidence to support it[1].

That's the entire point. It's not up to other people to provide evidence which contradicts the existence of an "immaterial teapot[2]", it's up to the person who proposed it to provide evidence which supports its existence. That's as true for Russell's Teapot as it is for Intelligent Design.

I.D. is simply much more logical than blind evolution. Things in nature are so meticulous that they simply could not evolved on their own: Childbirth, immune system, circulatory system, bones, organs, etc etc etc.

So let's see some (any!) evidence to support this proposition of yours. Note that saying that something is more logical has no bearing on whether it is accurate. I can make an argument which is perfectly logical, which is decidedly not accurate based on the conditions which actually apply.

Quote from: skeptic54768

Not to mention the fact that we can jump into the air and technically be off the Earth for a few seconds while we are in the air. How can we evolve from materials from the Earth when we aren't even connected to the Earth? We are separate from the Earth, we are not glued down to it.

This has nothing to do with anything and isn't even a good analogy. None of the matter that makes up the Earth is 'attached' to it any more than we are, yet nobody attempts to make the fallacious argument that it's not part of Earth. Maybe you should spend some time reviewing physics and biology so you can avoid embarrassing yourself with arguments such as this.

I.D. is simply much more logical than blind evolution. Things in nature are so meticulous that they simply could not evolved on their own: Childbirth, immune system, circulatory system, bones, organs, etc etc etc.

Not to mention the fact that we can jump into the air and technically be off the Earth for a few seconds while we are in the air. How can we evolve from materials from the Earth when we aren't even connected to the Earth? We are separate from the Earth, we are not glued down to it.

Please answer the question at the head of the topic. This is not an ID topic but one about the bible.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Sorry to everyone if this topic comes up again but we have had several people recently claiming ID and not Evolution is the correct idea and this is usually based on the bible. Biblestudent, for example, uses the bible to show us how things ought to be.

So, to the theists who hold to ID, how do you know the bible is factually accurate? Now, I don't mean we can say it is if there is a Jerusalem and Bethlehem in the real world. No, I mean, when it comes to say creation, how do you know the account there is actually true and not a modified Babylonian narrative and using Babylonian gods?

I appreciate the fact that the bible is thought of as at least spiritually true and to contain all that is needed for salvation but it doesn't need to be factually accurate in, say, the creation narrative in order to to help one achieve salvation. The creation story could be a myth there to show the belief that there is a god who takes an interest in people without it having to be factually true.

Well, there you go, any answer, please?

I have no doubt the question is sincere but it is also impossible to answer. Based on the various ID people I have talked with over the years, it comes down to faith. If one accepts the Bible as the divinely inspired inerrant word of God to be interpreted literally unless the wording has similes, then the creation stories are accepted as fact. But that fact is based on faith the Bible truly is the divinely inspired inerrant word of God.

Any ideas or information which may run counter to that belief is rejected because the Bible is the divinely inspired inerrant word of God.

Curious to see if I am proven wrong,

OldChurchGuy

Logged

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Sadly, OCG, I rather think you are right. Our current band of IDers don't want to waste time on this topic if they could be spouting chunks of texts from creation websites. Shame really, but I suppose its how it is.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Sorry to everyone if this topic comes up again but we have had several people recently claiming ID and not Evolution is the correct idea and this is usually based on the bible. Biblestudent, for example, uses the bible to show us how things ought to be.

So, to the theists who hold to ID, how do you know the bible is factually accurate? Now, I don't mean we can say it is if there is a Jerusalem and Bethlehem in the real world. No, I mean, when it comes to say creation, how do you know the account there is actually true and not a modified Babylonian narrative and using Babylonian gods?

I appreciate the fact that the bible is thought of as at least spiritually true and to contain all that is needed for salvation but it doesn't need to be factually accurate in, say, the creation narrative in order to to help one achieve salvation. The creation story could be a myth there to show the belief that there is a god who takes an interest in people without it having to be factually true.

Well, there you go, any answer, please?

I have no doubt the question is sincere but it is also impossible to answer. Based on the various ID people I have talked with over the years, it comes down to faith. If one accepts the Bible as the divinely inspired inerrant word of God to be interpreted literally unless the wording has similes, then the creation stories are accepted as fact. But that fact is based on faith the Bible truly is the divinely inspired inerrant word of God.

Any ideas or information which may run counter to that belief is rejected because the Bible is the divinely inspired inerrant word of God.

Curious to see if I am proven wrong,

OldChurchGuy

OCG,

I feel that reading the Bible literally is the most honest way to go about it. When God says something, he means it. If God does not say that macroevolution ever happened, then it didn't happen. It would be right in the Book of Genesis if it was true.

All of these false Christians who buy into the false corrupted idea that the Earth is "billions" of years old are trusting man's word over God's Word. Atheists may hate us literalists, but they can't deny it's the most honest and respected way of believing the Bible.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

I feel that reading the Bible literally is the most honest way to go about it. When God says something, he means it. If God does not say that macroevolution ever happened, then it didn't happen. It would be right in the Book of Genesis if it was true.

All of these false Christians who buy into the false corrupted idea that the Earth is "billions" of years old are trusting man's word over God's Word. Atheists may hate us literalists, but they can't deny it's the most honest and respected way of believing the Bible.

Why are you simply restating the position this thread starts with? The OP is asking why you think the bible is true, so that means you have to give your reasons for believing it is true. Quit the stalling and answer.

Logged

If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

I feel that reading the Bible literally is the most honest way to go about it. When God says something, he means it. If God does not say that macro-evolution ever happened, then it didn't happen. It would be right in the Book of Genesis if it was true.

All of these false Christians who buy into the false corrupted idea that the Earth is "billions" of years old are trusting man's word over God's Word. Atheists may hate us literalists, but they can't deny it's the most honest and respected way of believing the Bible.

You ask more questions than you answer - not odd really as you didn't answer the question. I think we have, then, tow questions as below

1. Why do you think the bible is true

2. Why do you think it is literally god's word?

Could you have a crack at answering those, Skeptic? It shouldn't take much.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Sorry to everyone if this topic comes up again but we have had several people recently claiming ID and not Evolution is the correct idea and this is usually based on the bible. Biblestudent, for example, uses the bible to show us how things ought to be.

So, to the theists who hold to ID, how do you know the bible is factually accurate? Now, I don't mean we can say it is if there is a Jerusalem and Bethlehem in the real world. No, I mean, when it comes to say creation, how do you know the account there is actually true and not a modified Babylonian narrative and using Babylonian gods?

I appreciate the fact that the bible is thought of as at least spiritually true and to contain all that is needed for salvation but it doesn't need to be factually accurate in, say, the creation narrative in order to to help one achieve salvation. The creation story could be a myth there to show the belief that there is a god who takes an interest in people without it having to be factually true.

Well, there you go, any answer, please?

I have no doubt the question is sincere but it is also impossible to answer. Based on the various ID people I have talked with over the years, it comes down to faith. If one accepts the Bible as the divinely inspired inerrant word of God to be interpreted literally unless the wording has similes, then the creation stories are accepted as fact. But that fact is based on faith the Bible truly is the divinely inspired inerrant word of God.

Any ideas or information which may run counter to that belief is rejected because the Bible is the divinely inspired inerrant word of God.

Curious to see if I am proven wrong,

OldChurchGuy

OCG,

I feel that reading the Bible literally is the most honest way to go about it. When God says something, he means it. If God does not say that macroevolution ever happened, then it didn't happen. It would be right in the Book of Genesis if it was true.

All of these false Christians who buy into the false corrupted idea that the Earth is "billions" of years old are trusting man's word over God's Word. Atheists may hate us literalists, but they can't deny it's the most honest and respected way of believing the Bible.

I appreciate your response. It seems to confirm my statement that such a response is a statement of faith. I have no problem with that.

The challenge is presenting that faith as though it is irrefutable fact. Particularly on this website that asks / demands some kind of empirical evidence / proof to back up the statement of faith when presented as irrefutable fact.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

Logged

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

I feel that reading the Bible literally is the most honest way to go about it. When God says something, he means it. If God does not say that macroevolution ever happened, then it didn't happen. It would be right in the Book of Genesis if it was true.

All of these false Christians who buy into the false corrupted idea that the Earth is "billions" of years old are trusting man's word over God's Word. Atheists may hate us literalists, but they can't deny it's the most honest and respected way of believing the Bible.

Science does not trust any man's word. Science depends on the statement of nature itself. The bible contradicts nature not the word of man. Either the god of the bible is a demon (Yahweh was invented as a composite of Baal, El and other gods) who spreads false ideas, or he does not exist and the bible was written by Iron Age men with Iron Age ideas.

Good point, Foxy! The Creation myth has a god improve on a water cover void and make it into a flat plate with a dome over the top and the stars fixed into the dome. The sun and moon are towed across each day, whilst the rain and snow are stored and dumped from the dome through doors. This is so like the universe we know today that it must have been a god who dictated it, mustn't it?

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

It's mainly just protestant religions who do believe in ID though the opposition against Catholicism in some sects is so strong that I wonder if it's more of just that, than anything. else. Catholics believe in Evolution (but that Biblegod did it) so they don't.

That is the answer.

When the Protestant Reformation took place, it was on the basis of God being accessible to everyone and not merely through the clergy of the Catholic Church. The Protestants rejected completely the authority of the pope, and that included everything that the Church's apologists had ever said about everything in the past. The Protestants therefore relied solely on the Bible that they thought of as inerrant, and still do.

At the time, it was fortunate for the Protestants that the level of scientific knowledge was low and so Bible inerrancy did not conflict with real knowledge. However, it was equally unfortunate that the Enlightenment was just around the corner. The scientific community started coming to the fore in the early 18th century, 200 years after the Reformation. By this time, the dogma of the Protestants was set in stone.

As science moved inexorably forward and more and more Biblical ideas fell, the God of the Gaps commanded some of His followers to maintain "His Truth" in the face of logic and knowledge. The dissenters/non-conformist churches were used to the idea of demanding that their way was the only way: that is how they had started. Such churches as the Baptists, Methodists, various sets of "Bretheren", Lutherans, Quakers, etc. held on to Genesis, whilst the Church Of England and the Church of Rome started, in the late 19th century, to accept the ideas of science: this was partially a social matter as many of the scientists were members of the establishment that consisted of the wealthy and influential classes (upon whom the finances of the Church were based) and partly not wanting to appear ignorant in the face of well educated members. (Also some of the Catholic priests were also scientists and that was a problem.)

The Catholic Church was a little late (1950) in accepting evolution but probably recalled the unfortunate episode with Galileo GalileiWiki. Of course, this was ammunition for the fundamentalists who hold that anything the Catholic Church says is a complete lie. These protestant sects could not possibly agree!

This left behind the non-conformists who had entrenched themselves in fundamentalist paradox and ignorance as a mark of their identity. Knowledge has now passed from conjecture to hypothesis to law and such is the pride in ignorance of the Fundamentalist, they are no longer able to admit that they are wrong and have been wrong for centuries.

« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 08:15:50 AM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Except when he doesn't. Like when he tells Abe to murder Isaac. Or when he tells Abe he's going to wipe out Sodom, flat out, and Abe negotiates with him. Or when yhwh says he's going to eradicate sin by drowning the whole world. Or when jesus H tells people he'll come back in their generation.

I feel that reading the Bible literally is the most honest way to go about it.

I'm sure you feel that way. However, just because you feel something is the most honest way does not actually make it the most honest way. Indeed, if you were convinced to think that the Bible should be read literally, then it would be honesty to say that you hold such a belief. Yet your belief wouldn't actually change whether or not it was actually the most honest way to go about things. Indeed, it would actually get in the way of knowing whether it was or not. You are convinced that's the best way to go about it, so why would you consider any other way? Yet that's nothing but a mental trap.

Quote from: skeptic54768

When God says something, he means it. If God does not say that macroevolution ever happened, then it didn't happen. It would be right in the Book of Genesis if it was true.

Why would it be? There are lots of things that are never mentioned in Genesis (or indeed, any other book of the Bible) that can be scientifically verified today. Even if every word of Genesis were literally and factually true, it would have no bearing whatsoever on the truth value of something that was never mentioned in Genesis. And that assumes that Genesis is literally and factually true, never a safe assumption to make. Just because you honestly believe it to be true does not actually make it true. If anything, it works against the idea of it being true, because you've never seriously considered the question of whether it actually is true[1], you just assume it is because your belief requires it.

It's always dangerous to assume that something is true merely because you need (or want) it to be. You should never assume that something is true, especially if it's the one thing you really absolutely need to be true. Imagine if you built a house, trusting that the foundation was solid, and it wasn't. What do you think would eventually happen to that house and anyone in it at the time?

Quote from: skeptic54768

]All of these false Christians who buy into the false corrupted idea that the Earth is "billions" of years old

"No true Christian", skeptic? Tsk, tsk.

Quote from: skeptic54768

are trusting man's word over God's Word. Atheists may hate us literalists, but they can't deny it's the most honest and respected way of believing the Bible.

The problem is, you aren't actually trusting God's word. You're trusting something purported (by other humans) to be God's word. How do you know it's actually God's word? I know you believe it, but belief does not change the truth value of something. Doesn't matter how much you believe it's true, 2 will never equal 3.

I'm quite well aware of the verse from 2 Timothy...but all that actually says is that the Bible is "God-breathed" and useful for various things. It does not actually say anything about the truth value of the Bible.

I feel that reading the Bible literally is the most honest way to go about it.

No. Bible literalists have painted themselves into a corner and are too embarrassed to admit it. They took their beliefs when there was little knowledge of the real world and now spend their time defending the indefensible.

It is time, like the Catholic Church did when it admitted that the earth went round the sun, not the sun round the earth, to admit that your fundamental beliefs are simply wrong - but pride is a hard fault to overcome.

The same Christians who deny that scientists can be trusted (like reliably date anything ancient) will jump on any scrap of scientific evidence that seems to support something in the bible. Archaeologists uncover some ruins mentioned in the Christian bible (and coincidentally also mentioned in Persian writings, Roman texts, a Star Trek episode, the Quran and the Book of Mormon).

"Aha! See, even science shows that Christianity is true!"

If the earth is not billions years old, why did god make it look that way?

If the earth is not billions years old, why did god make it look that way?

That's an assumption, that God 'made it look that way'. It looks that way to most scientists, but that doesn't have to mean God is trying to trick us. It might simply mean science somewhere has made some fundamental errors. We're none of us perfect, after all.

If the earth is not billions years old, why did god make it look that way?

That's an assumption, that God 'made it look that way'. It looks that way to most scientists, but that doesn't have to mean God is trying to trick us. It might simply mean science somewhere has made some fundamental errors. We're none of us perfect, after all.

So ... is this your answer to the OP? That you believe the Bible is true because scientists might have made some errors about the age of the earth?

Logged

“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

If the earth is not billions years old, why did god make it look that way?

That's an assumption, that God 'made it look that way'. It looks that way to most scientists, but that doesn't have to mean God is trying to trick us. It might simply mean science somewhere has made some fundamental errors. We're none of us perfect, after all.

If the earth is not billions years old, why did god make it look that way?

That's an assumption, that God 'made it look that way'. It looks that way to most scientists, but that doesn't have to mean God is trying to trick us. It might simply mean science somewhere has made some fundamental errors. We're none of us perfect, after all.

So ... is this your answer to the OP? That you believe the Bible is true because scientists might have made some errors about the age of the earth?

No, I didn't even read the OP. I was just struck by that one comment and wanted to respond.

I believe the bible to be true for several reasons, chief of which is the way it tells the one unfolding story through many different human authors over hundreds of years.

Another, and I know this is cryptic but I don't have time to explain it right now, is that when I read it I love it and feel immense peace, but I often choose to do anything but read the bible when I have spare time.

<snip>I believe the bible to be true for several reasons, chief of which is the way it tells the one unfolding story through many different human authors over hundreds of years.

Another, and I know this is cryptic but I don't have time to explain it right now, is that when I read it I love it and feel immense peace, but I often choose to do anything but read the bible when I have spare time.

Ah yes here we are again with your cryptic remarks that you never have time to explain. I'm still waiting for you to share your method for determining what parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and which aren't - you left that one hanging a couple months back.

Logged

“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter